That "latest report" is the same one previously posted in this thread. George replied to it 09/26/11 08:25 PM as:
That's great! <Insert animated emoticom of a guy laughing his ass off... .> Well, I re-read both and admire my consistency though not my memory. I truly have no memory of previously reading that report or writing the first comment but am relieved that they don't contradict each other. My memory may be tanking but the internal logic centers are functioning!
But I'll stick with cheerfully agreeing it's technically possible but repeat that no one has come up with a reason toilets need to be (re)built. We can quibble that USFS did or did not follow the letter of NEPA etc. I will tell you from first-hand experience a statement like "they would probably win very easily" if going to court is spectacularly wrong. It's a total crap shoot (um, so to speak). The HSHA suit against Sequoia Kings that Morrison and Forster took on (pro bono) and won, probably cost near a million dollars. I talked to a USFS attorney who defended the USFS master plan and they spent well over $500,000 just to unsuccessfully defend (from the same law firm) their EA a few years ago.
SN absolutely correctly says "This sounds dumb, but there has to be a well defined problem to justify action." That's not dumb, that is the crux of the this whole discussion and, from an EA/NEPA standpoint, nothing said here has successfully addressed that.
I don't really care about the toilet brouhaha problem except to the extent I hear the distant baying of hounds and the ancient instincts of my kind want to join in the chase. But I think it's useful to have an overall understanding of the Wilderness Act and how you go about complying with its requirements. For any project, you need a Purpose and Need statement. The two are fairly inextricably linked. The Purpose is based on the Need and aims to solve or mitigate that need. It has to be within the strictures of the Wilderness Act and assorted supporting laws and regulations (e.g. NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act & other stuff).
does the water have to be polluted to show there's a problem, or does the hiker experience matter at all?
It's all about the Environment. So yes to the first: as above and within the strictures of the Wilderness Act etc., if you can show that stream or other environmental pollution is increased either as a result of wag bags or because the toilets were removed, then you're starting to build a need that a Purpose can address.
But no, the hiker experience matters very little except as it applies to the WA. Hikers merely unhappy about crapping into a bag would have no influence in how a Need is developed. Aesthetics, though, is arguably a need (e.g. wag bags left hither and yon) in that they disturb the wilderness feel of a place. But is building a large toilet and the associated maintenance a reasonable intrusion necessary to solve that problem? Or would other Alternatives in such a document be better -- e.g. hiring extra rangers to pick up and pack out abandoned wag bags? What is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative? Which would have less environmental impact to achieve the purpose and solve the need?
So SN et al have indeed done a terrific job of establishing a technical solution to what -- so far and within the meaning of the Wilderness Act -- is, unfortunately, a non-existent problem.
